Monthly Archives: October 2008

With news this week that Congress is poised to consider a new stimulus package, I am forced to again ask a question that seems silly in Washington:Â How will we pay for this?

While a few Members of Congress have raised the issue, it certainly was not the primary concern of the House Budget Committee when they interviewed Ben Bernanke on Monday.Â And, when they did direct this question to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his answer was the standard rhetoric about how Congress needed to make tough choices.Â Needless to say, not many specifics were discussed.

Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.

As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.

The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.

â€œIf you donâ€™t know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else.â€
Laurence J. Peter, US educator & writer (1919 – 1988)

Where are we going? What is the destiny of America? Who is responsible to save our nation?

It seems apparent that at this time in our history we are struggling to know where we should be going. Given the constant cries for a â€œbailoutâ€ for every form of financial crisis it seems that Americans have resigned themselves to government solutions to our problems. Many are now admitting that our financial crises have been contributed to (if not caused outright) by the governmentâ€™s unnatural involvement in this economy. Despite this we do not seem to have the courage, or foresight, to address our problems in any other way but through greater government debt, guarantees, etc. Certainly, the endless piling on of debt onto the backs of the American people cannot continue indefinitely.

It has been long understood that our federal government is going deeper into debt, consistently raising the debt ceiling and demonstrating no fiscal restraint. In recent years, debt ceiling increases have been placed in â€œmust passâ€ legislation as a means to guarantee that Republicans as well as Democrats would vote for them when Congress was under Republican control.

Readers of my posts here will know that I think the courts often get very far from the original intent of our Founding Fathers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. There is a process for changing the Constitution (i.e. amendments), and that power is not supposed to be just in the hands of a handful of justices or a single judge, nor is it supposed to be in the hands of the legislature along.

The new “Bail-Out Bill” that just passed is a good example of losing sight of the basic theory of the Constitution. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to “ensure the economic well-being of Americans.” Well, I certainly with for all Americans to have economic well being, but the Federal Government was not originally empowered to do that so directly.

It is amazing how far away we as a nation have strayed from the original vision of the founders with regards to the proper role of government. We have, in fact, devolved 180 degrees from that original purpose. Government was intended to be the protector of the rights of the people. Every individual was to be free to pursue his idea of happiness, as long as he did not violate the rights of others to do the same.

Government was to step in only when oneâ€™s â€œliberty interestâ€ was violated to â€œrestoreâ€ the victim. This was called the restorative justice principle. In fact, there was no â€œcrimeâ€ other than treason against the people as a whole, unless there was a victim. No fines were paid to the State. The sole purpose of the law was to restore the victim.

It has not been a good week for the Republic.Â It took quite a bit of trampling of the Constitution, but the bailout bill passed, as I suspected it would.

The bailout failed the first time it was brought to the House.Â Undaunted, the Senate pressed on by attaching the bailout as an amendment to another House passed bill that was pending in the Senate.Â The new bailout version had new taxes, so according to the Constitution it should not have originated in the Senate.